An Idea

[Drifter]

"Split the atom and LO! Behold the Sun." -RUMI

millenia before the microscope!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking

There is mechanism that is working inside the sun called nuclear fission. Everything boils down to if right things are at the right place to make systems work...

[Bob Campbell]

I dont think out of body experiences really work. They are basically just a state of the mind...

Hi Dipayankar,

As yes, but what is the mind? The physical and biological sciences as they have developed in the last century and a half and especially in the last few decades, would have us believe that the evolution of life can be reduced to a fortuitous series of molecular and atomic accidents going all the way back to the Big Bang. Does anyone seriously believe that a collection of molecules can accidently organize themselves into a conscious intelligence? Are molecules conscious? Can molecules think? Can they learn to cooperate without aid from some active organizing principle that is implicit in the nature of the cosmos? Can they span space and time and spontaneously integrate a history of experience into a sentient creature?

The simplest bacterial cells must have a couple thousand complex enzymes that must be encoded for in DNA, with RNAs, Robosomes, histones and a host of other complicated features in the cell in order for it to work as a whole. It is like pregnancy. It is an all or none process. There is no evidence that a part cell can work. A woman can't be a little bit pregnant. All the needed apparatus must be there for it to work at all and the incredibly complex mechanism is driven by organized energy processes that science thus far has no paradigm that can relate to or make sense of how it all works as a whole. A lot of the pieces of the puzzle are being collected but the picture on the cover of the jigsaw box is missing.

So some scientists actively preach the blind belief that it all happened by accident. There is no evidence whatever to support this wild supposition that has evidently become fixed in the minds of many mainstream scientists. It is by no means a universal consensus but the peer review process seems to weed out any suggestion that there may be more to it than this hopelessly simplistic and morally and spiritually bankrupt view of the whole universe.

I do not mean to be critical of the peer review process in this regard. The doors of science can hardly be opened to wild spiritual speculations either. And the current paradigm is at least gathering a great deal of valuable knowledge. But there is a large and growing body of data relating to out of body and near death experiences and they are relatively common. In a sequel to his book "Life after Life," Dr. Moody a medical doctor who happened to be presented with many such accounts in the course of his practice was flooded with a deluge of more reports from readers. He identified 15 points of similarity between the near death reports in his original book, even though the fifty or so people that reported them had no contact with one another. The many hundreds of additional people who wrote to him reported the same main points of similarity.

One feature is confirmation. A person may be clinically dead on an operating table, no heart or brain activity, a flat liner for up to ten minutes, then return to their body and tell the doctors and nurses exactly what happened, what they did and said while they were dead. They say they were floating above the room and could both see and hear everything going on. A corpse can hardly report in detail on events that actually happened. By a conservative estimate this must have occurred to tens of millions of people world wide, including others who have them in a waking state. Most people know of someone who has had one. I know several although I have never had one of this kind myself. These people are certainly not all deranged.

Think about it. We are indebted to our entire evolutionary history reaching back hundreds of millions of years for our every thought and feeling. We look at the stars and see them with the naked eye as they were up to many hundreds of thousands of years ago. With this mind and our instruments we can probe the deepest reaches of the universe going back billions of years. Yet the cells in our body renew their molecular constituents in just a few years, even brain cells. And we all believe that there is such a thing as truth that transcends our brief sojourn on Earth. Even if we believe that we face utter extinction at death we believe this is true for everyone who has ever lived. So this mind is not confined to the physical limits and physical perceptions of this molecular corpse we are obliged to walk around in.

The problem for science is it has no paradigm of how the whole cosmic order works. Accidental cause will not do any more. Neither will creation myths. The picture on the box is missing. Science has no practical methodology that can study how biologically living processes are meaningfully integrated in a disciplined way. Scientists must reject rampant superstition and unsubstantiated conjecture or it would fragment into meaningless babble in endless machinations of conflicting linguistic opinions.

And yet the existing paradigm that has worked well for centuries is being rapidly exhausted in its ability to produce meaningful results too. The physics theories that are being presented are generally mutually exclusive conjectures of fantasy. The practice of physics has been formally divorced from the philosophy of physics and this inherently precludes an integrated methodology that can relate pragmatically to the biological sciences as well. Science needs a new paradigm that can expand its horizons. It needs the coherent picture on the cover of the box so the pieces of the puzzle can begin to be assembled in more meaningful ways.

So then what does this mind come down to? Are we each separate minds? Is consciousness just a private accidental affair? Can we share in conscious experience? Are we mutually exclusive beings, just collections of molecules? Can we transcend our mutual physical separation? Can we share in the recognition of truth, or love, or beauty, or justice or compassion? Can we feel another’s suffering or joy?

Universal values like truth are not physical things. And yet they are what we seek as means of making realistic value judgments in living. They transcend this physical body. So mind itself must transcend this physical body. It follows that there is no compelling reason to believe that OOBs are invariably aberrant hallucinations of an individual’s mind. This is a belief that can find no confirmation in either the private or public domain. Think about it. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to if course, but it is rather an arbitrary stance to take. I venture to say that if you had such an experience you would change your opinion.

Forgive me for going on at some length. I am just writing this in the hope that you and perhaps others will see that the matter deserves a little more consideration.

Very best wishes,
Bob

www.cosmic-mindreach.com

[NotStein]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]

Hi Dipayankar,

As yes, but what is the mind? The physical and biological sciences as they have developed in the last century and a half and especially in the last few decades, blah, blah, blah, blah, baa] would have us believe that the evolution of life can be reduced to a fortuitous series of molecular and atomic accidents going all the way back to the Big Bang. Does anyone seriously blah, blah, blaa, baa, baa]believe that a collection of molecules can accidently organize themselves into a conscious intelligence? Are molecules conscious? Can molecules think? Can they learn to cooperate blah, blah, baa, baa, baa]without aid from some active organizing principle that is implicit in the nature of the cosmos? Can they span space and time and spontaneouslybaa, baa, baa, baa, baa] integrate a history of experience into a sentient creature?

Before I start this; ProfPat,you have a beautiful grandson, whose intellect is immediately apparent to anyone with visual acuity. Now, as to the quoted -
No offense; on the other hand, to be honest, plenty of offense. Maybe I'm in the wrong Fing website... Why? Because I thought I was in a TOE (Theory of Everything), and not a THOE (Theology of Everything) website. If y'all are going to let religious FILLosophy (as in fill pages and pages with barely intelligible religious rants) dominate this website - let's face it, they're alot easier to write than real SCIENCE, and take a lot less time to fact-check. You know what Jesus would say?

Now, before you roast me & write me off, I'll tell you - I've been hypnotised (in a trance) - thought my feet were atomized to the floor (unfortunately, I was unconcious at the time, so I can't tell you alot about it!). I lived in a haunted farmhouse when I was in college. Stuff flying around & everything. I've seen a UFO from less than 1000 ft. But you know what? I'm not going to tell you more about it here. Why? Because I don't have a shred of physical evidence. Without that, I even have to doubt my own experience. Because this is a science forum. It's about fact, empirical evidence, and conjecture based soley on those two.

Let's review the origin of this thread -

My idea about the structure of atoms is stated in the attachment. Please take a look and let me know about your thoughts.
Attached Files Idea-file.pdf (467.0 KB, 92 views)

Profpat,I have just seen a portion of your work,outstanding stuff,will see the rest later,
thank you for allowing us to see it.
regards michael

Maybe that's why they're called 'threads' - because a great idea barely 'hangs on by a thread', if at all; It's pulse becomes 'thready'; We're left with a 'thread of an idea'. I understand why they're not called cables, or ropes. Where in the h--- did this thread go? It was a great idea, founded in principle, lost in a din of philisophical garbage (GB). GB is easy to resort to, because all of us are mathmatical and cosmological hacks (we wouldn't be on this site if we weren't). It's hard to take a good idea to the next level, because it takes real research. But the cool thing about cosmology and astromony is that amatuers still to make real, significant contributions to the field- if they're willing to work for it, not just waste bandwidth.

If you want to learn or expouse faith or religion, go to church on Sunday. Evangelists, this place is one of science's last untainted bastions. Leave it alone; if it weren't for your own religious doubts, you wouldn't be around here anyway. Faith and Fact are inconcruent by definition.

Are you mad right now? If you are, that's because the truth of this is really hitting home. If it didn't, you wouldn't be mad. Go check the mirror if you're not sure. I'm the first to admit that this post doesn't advance ProfPat's original idea either. But I am working to understand it, and it'sramifications, and will post again if I have anything truly worthwhile to contribute.

If this post is censored or removed, then I will understand I'm in just another site promoting 'filtered truth' -"Fair and Balanced" as it might be, and you won't hear from me again.

Give me TOE or give me death,

Jeff.

[Profpat]

Hi Jeff;

Thank you so much for your post. My grandson is eurasian, his father is Chinese and his mother ( my daughter ) European. (1/2 Irish and 1/2 German ). I believe that is why he has what I call a universal face, which I find to be very beautiful. ( But I'm his granddad and a bit biased ).

I agree with you Jeff, I have been a little disappointed with the responses. I had hoped we could talk about polarity ( I believe there is 4 poles ), strong and weak nuclear forces ( I believe it may describe both the strong force by positive and negative space in my proposed particle, and the limits that this bonding would suggest ).

I also have a a Venn diagram with an additional area interfacing the other 3 in the Venn Diagram. I haven't presented that yet because we haven't explored the 3 dimensions adequately yet. But it does enclose back on itself, and is very interesting.

I would love to see a computer simulation binding the particles to see how many could be bound together. Also my Idea really is positive and negative charges reducing the color force ( QCD ) to really a form of EMR.

It was my thought that my G.U.T. was really explaining all forces ( except gravity which my idea doesn't address ) Through EMR in an understandable way. And that is just the external side. The internal side is a seperate discussion.

So thanks again Jeff'

Pat

[Profpat]

I forgot to mention his father has a PhD in physics from MIT, and an MBA from Harvard. His mom is a K-12 teacher and of course I'm an accounting professor.

SO he should be a bright little kid. But he could be as dumb as a door knob like his grandfather and he would still be my #1 grandson.

BTW His dad said sorry " I don't understand your Idea Pat " He is probably being diplomatic.

Best,

Pat

[Bob Campbell]

Give me TOE or give me death,

Jeff.

Hi Jeff,

In all fairness Jeff I think you have quoted me out of context. I do not understand why you have taken rather vehement offense that really amounts to the religious rant that you accuse me of. I do not subscribe to any traditional religion. I have a science education and have studied hard science in depth all of my life. I seek the same thing as you, a pragmatic theory of everything that can lead us out of the wilderness of conflicting biased opinions and unsubstantiated assumptions that underlie the current flaws in our understanding of the universe and our appropriate role in it.

I think your obviously highly spirited remarks are off the mark. I am promoting neither a religious diatribe nor one exclusively based on mathematical physics either. Both sides of these mutually exclusive perspectives come down to biased beliefs entrenched in culturally conditioned dogmatic positions. There are powerful emotional commitments to both sides and neither side is just going to disappear. We need a new paradigm that can bridge this fundamental gap in our perceptions in a way that translates into pragmatic science without arbitrarily dismissing the emotional energies that are obviously spirited in nature and that animate us and fuel our thoughts and actions. We can not just dismiss the human condition from the equation without divorcing ourselves from our own understanding.

I agree that the primary focus in this forum should be on science based on phenomenal evidence. But that should extend to documented phenomenal experience of a spiritual nature where it is relevant to the nature of the human mind. That should reasonably extend to so called OOBs but only where they can find some degree of consistent relationship to the nature of mind. I did not introduce this in the discussion but only responded to the comments of others where I thought it might be helpful.

I first came to this thread because of a post that Pat made on another thread. I saw that he was making an effort to bridge this gap between science and religion in a kind of amorphous recipe that he introduced just as a tentative idea. He introduced factors such as the Void, the I Ching, and so on that are associated with the Eastern Philosophies and religions. That is the theme of his Idea post. I do not see how Pat’s approach can possibly lead to pragmatic science but he at least recognizes a need to bridge this gap between East and West. More than half the world is a spirit culture. Western science can’t reasonably just dismiss it any more than we can dismiss half our brain.

I do not think that an all embracing TOE can be found exclusively in left brain language, including the language of mathematics. There must be a more fundamental structure to the cosmic order that we must be able to access if there is ever to be a meaningful and comprehensive approach to a Theory of Everything. That must include some underlying structural basis to physics and mathematics of course, including cosmology, but current models are fraught with problems and a broad variety of mutually exclusive interpretations as you must know. None of them can find direct confirmation in phenomenal experience of any kind apart from very tenuous threads to very isolated fragments of obscure experimental data that are inherently controversial. They are conjectures much like Pat’s recipe for what he sees as a tasty soup just as others do of their pet theories. I can not see how any of them with the possible exception of the Bohm Interpretation and de Broglie’s pilot wave can provide a convincing basis for meaningful discussion toward a Theory of Everything.

The Bohm interpretation as an extension of de Broglie’s pilot wave at least recognizes that there are universal non-local factors involved in the physical universe and it provides a pragmatic mathematical basis to make some limited headway. There is a recent science article under Toe News entitled “Non Locality of a Single Particle Demonstrated Without Objection.” This clearly indicates that there is a universal component involved in the physical projection of atomic matter. If you have a look at my website or see my TOE article “Gravity and the Void: Tip of a TOE Iceberg” you will see that my work does provide a structural basis consistent with this empirical evidence that is mathematically consistent with special relativity and de Broglie’s pilot wave. On my website it also extends to a pragmatic and highly disciplined approach to how the human nervous system meaningfully integrates sensory experience synapse by synapse consistent with the factual evidence. This can not be called a religious rant.

Whether you can see anything constructive in my work or not, I do share your distaste for pseudo-sciences concocted from blind religious convictions, spiritualism gone off the rails, and aberrations of a similar kind that are based on blind beliefs. The methodology proposed in my work to explore the structure of the cosmic order is not a belief system. It can only be understood through patient intuitive reflection and persistent questioning of how it relates directly to phenomenal experience.

I hope that you will not take further offense at these remarks. I am perhaps wasting more bandwidth but I think you are prejudging my comments related to Pat’s thread without appreciation of the main body of my work or its potential value. My comments on his thread are admittedly out of context with the overall approach taken in my work.

Please believe that my words here are offered with respect and in good faith that we share a desire for some universal basis of understanding that can enrich, not impoverish, the incredible diversity of the human condition.

Best wishes,
Bob

[dipayankar]

I hadn't had any such feeling though... probably I am not imaginative enough...

"Ideation" appears on the screen of Awareness, sometimes, it can feel like the very Earth is moving under your feet.

[N0B0DY]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein

It can lead to many new ideas!

[neutralino]

Hi Pat,

I've had another look at your idea since I've got a few minutes free, in an attempt to try and understand it and, if possible, make any constructive comment! However, there are a few things I don't understand about your idea (some of them are fundamental things I believe!).

On the page entitles "Creation's first partial second" you show how dimensions are formed. My problems come in dimension 3, volume and the venn diagram on the next page (which I think is fundamental to your theory).

1.How does the Venn diagram relate to a particle. For example, how would I "see" a proton on that page? I know you say that it's in the very centre, since it has positive charge (what I think you represent with ___ and negative as - - -), but why?

2. How do quarks fit into this picture? You state on the first page there are "3 quarks" but where do they come into play? Or, are the three quarks the three colors R,G,B? (I know that the standard model tells us there are 8 quarks, but if you decide to only consider protons neutrons and electrons, then I suppose you can only use three).

3. The electron is a "projection from the proton." How does this projection work? If all particles are members of some set of the "inner sanctum," how can one of the most fundamental ones not be?

4. Then, there's the question of how do particles interact; which forces do you still have in your model? It appears to be only the color force; do all particles interact under this? I guess this question can be left until I understand the above ones.

That's all for now. Hopefully I'll be able to better understand your idea if I understand how these questions are answered.

[Profpat]

Hi neutralino;

First let me thank you very much for taking the time to peruse my Idea. As you know I value your opinion.

Hi Pat,

I've had another look at your idea since I've got a few minutes free, in an attempt to try and understand it and, if possible, make any constructive comment! However, there are a few things I don't understand about your idea (some of them are fundamental things I believe!).

On the page entitles "Creation's first partial second" you show how dimensions are formed. My problems come in dimension 3, volume and the venn diagram on the next page (which I think is fundamental to your theory). Yes it is, in fact it would be my theory on a T shirt.

1.How does the Venn diagram relate to a particle. For example, how would I "see" a proton on that page?The whole Venn Diagram is the proton, not just the center. Together they is a net + charge. I know you say that it's in the very centre, since it has positive charge (what I think you represent with ___ and negative as - - -), but why?The I Ching represents ___ as male, and - - as female. If you look at say area #4 ( the BLUE area }You'll see 1 convex curve ___ and 2 concave curves - -. Multiplying pos x neg x neg = positive ( or a positive area ) Remember this is in total agreement with the mathematical octants on the following page. Also the 3 outside Primary colors, are the I Ching sons and the 3 inner colors are the secondary or complementary colors are the I Ching daughters ( coincidence? )

2. How do quarks fit into this picture? You state on the first page there are "3 quarks" but where do they come into play? Or, are the three quarks the three colors R,G,B? Yes. Those would be the 3 quarks.(I know that the standard model tells us there are 8 quarks, but if you decide to only consider protons neutrons and electrons, then I suppose you can only use three).Yes. I am only dealing with 3 quarks here, and discussing only the Proton/electron Neutron. ( This is an Idea in progress, and I realize there are many subatomic particles not addressed here, and your area of interest gravity not addressed.



3. The electron is a "projection from the proton." How does this projection work? If all particles are members of some set of the "inner sanctum," how can one of the most fundamental ones not be? Well it is and it isn't. I believe it was Dirac who had a theory of negative space. Additionally I think I read that electrons can be viewed as point particles anywhere in space. And so when the proton projects its beam, it manisfest the electron, which than becomes a ripple or field in space. ( This is why I think the electron can be viewed as both a point particle and also as a " cloud ". Further I think this explains the remarkable coincidence that for every proton there just happens to be an electron to 10 to the 80th power. Quite a coincidence.)When the proton is enfolded in a spherical shape all positive and negative areas are balanced.

4. Then, there's the question of how do particles interact; which forces do you still have in your model? It appears to be only the color force; do all particles interact under this? I guess this question can be left until I understand the above ones.Actually that is the force Gell-Mann and others proposed. I have no trouble with that but actually I think it's are old familiar EMR in operation here. Positive and Negative charges or areas.

That's all for now. Hopefully I'll be able to better understand your idea if I understand how these questions are answered.

Well again thank you muchly for your time and effort Neutralino.

Very best,

Pat